Next Article in Journal
Editorial on Special Issue “Surface Chemistry in Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy”
Next Article in Special Issue
Biomonitoring of the Urban Environment of Kielce and Olsztyn (Poland) Based on Studies of Total and Bioavailable Lead Content in Soils and Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale agg.)
Previous Article in Journal
Complexation of Alkali and Alkaline-Earth Metal Cations at Spodumene-Saltwater Interfaces by Molecular Simulation: Impact on Oleate Adsorption
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/min11010011
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chitosan with Bentonite and Biochar in Ni-Affected Soil Reduces Grain Ni Concentrations, Improves Soil Enzymes and Grain Quality in Lentil

by
Hafiz Syed Tanzeem-ul-Haq
1,
Bilal Rasool
2,
Syed Ehtisham-ul-Haque
3,
Sadia Saif
4,
Sadia Zafar
5,
Tahira Younis
2,
Imran Akhtar
6,
Laila Jafri
7,
Naeem Iqbal
1,
Nasir Masood
8,
Karolina Lewińska
9 and
Muhammad Iqbal
1,*
1
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Government College University, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
2
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Government College University, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
3
Department of Pathobiology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore (Jhang Campus), Jhang 35200, Pakistan
4
Department of Environmental Science, Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
5
Department of Botany, Division of Science and Technology, University of Education, Faisalabad Campus, Samanabad 38000, Pakistan
6
Entomology Section, Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Bahawalpur 63100, Pakistan
7
Department of Life Sciences, Abasyn University, Islamabad Campus, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
8
Department of Environmental Sciences, Sub Campus Vehari, COMSATS University Islamabad, Punjab 12000, Pakistan
9
Environmental Remote Sensing and Soil Science Research Unit, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, ul. Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2021, 11(1), 11; https://doi.org/10.3390/min11010011
Submission received: 29 October 2020 / Revised: 9 December 2020 / Accepted: 23 December 2020 / Published: 24 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Potentially Toxic Elements in Soils Affected by Metal Mining and Processing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ecological and human health risks associated with Ni-affected soils are one of the major attention seeking issues nowadays. The current investigation is based on the usage of biochar (BR), chitosan (CN), bentonite (BE), and their mixture to immobilize Ni in a Ni-polluted soil and accordingly contracted Ni distribution in lentil plant parts, improved grain nutritional quality, antioxidant defense system, and soil enzymatic activities. The soil was initially amended with CN, BE, and BR and later lentil was grown in this soil in pots. Results depicted the highest significance of BE+CN treatment in terms of reducing the Ni distribution in the roots, shoots, grain, and DTPA-extractable fractions, relative to control treatment. Contrarily, the BR+CN treatment displayed the minimum oxidative stress and the utmost plant growth, chlorophyll contents in the leaves, relative water content (RWC), micronutrient concentrations, and grain biochemistry. The BR+CN indicated the highest activities of soil enzymes. Based on the results, we recommend BE+CN treatment to reduce the Ni distribution in the lentil plant. Although, improvement in plant growth, grain quality, soil enzymes, and a significant reduction in plant oxidative stress can only be gained with BR+CN.

1. Introduction

Nickel is a pernicious heavy metal that originates from numerous anthropogenic and geogenic inputs [1,2,3]. Unregulated release of effluents from industries such as electroplating [4], batteries, Ni mining, and smelter [5] is a leading anthropogenic route of Ni pollution in the soils of Pakistan [4,5]. The permissible limit of Ni concentration in the soil is 50 mg kg−1 soil [6,7,8]. Recent investigations have reported that the soil Ni concentrations in the different cities of Pakistan were as follows: Kasur 46.4 mg kg−1 soil [9], Lahore 28.8 mg kg−1 soil [7], Karachi 48.78 mg kg−1 soil [10] and Faisalabad [46.9 mg kg−1 soil [9]. Unfortunately, the occurrence of Ni at high concentrations in the soil deteriorates its overall health, fertility, enzymatic activities like β-glucosidase, acid phosphatase, urease and catalase, soil essential functions, and also negatively affect plants [5,11,12], humans and animals [13].
Under Ni stress, excessive generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) contents as a by-product of different metabolic pathways causes membrane lipid peroxidation in plant cells [14,15,16], signifying the role of several ROS like hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), malondialdehyde (MDA), and superoxide anion (O2−) for Ni-induced oxidative damage. The oxidative stress triggers the ascorbate-glutathione cycle for detoxification of H2O2 which could be a common way of regulating the overproduction of ROS. Besides the activation of the ascorbate-glutathione cycle, the antioxidant defense system becomes less effective due to the alteration in catalase (CAT) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities as endorsed by previous research [14,15,17]. The oxidative damage in Ni-stressed plants could be due to the accumulation of H2O2 as a result of increased activity of SOD while decreased CAT [18,19,20]. In Ni-stressed plant cells, the activity of SOD catalyzes disproportionation of O2− generation rate into O2 and H2O2 [21]. This generated H2O2 is transformed into H2O by the activities of CAT and ascorbate peroxidase (APX). Alongside, CAT activity effectively scavenges H2O2 by converting it into O2 and H2O [22].
Lentil belongs to the Fabaceae family and is the safest, healthy, disease curing food because of holding a large quantity of nutrition, bioactive compounds (like carotenoids, phenolics, and phytic acid, etc.), antioxidants as phytochemicals as well as anti-inflammatory potential [23]. An immense level of Ni in the soil restricts the growth of plants and yield, generation of chlorophyll contents, and the contents of biochemical compounds in them [4,5,24] including lentil [25,26].
While looking at technical and socio-economic constraints of implementing conventional remediation strategies for the soil contaminated with heavy metals [27], in-situ immobilization, a pliable method for remediation, using organic or/and inorganic amendments in the soil for remediating Ni, is becoming popular among the researchers [4,5,28,29]. Biochar (BR) is an organic material produced via pyrolyzing organic feedstock and represents traits like high cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH, water holding capacity (WHC), large surface area (SA), and high porosity [11,28,29]. It has been reported that mixing of BR in a Ni-affected soil improves water retention, CEC, and pH, and thereby enhances Ni sorption in Ni-affected soils [4,5,11,24,28,29]. Besides these traits, the presence of BR in a Ni-affected soil also improves soil health, becomes a source of essential nutrients, improves activities of soil enzymes [11], and promotes plant growth and nutritional status [4,5,30,31]. Likewise, chitosan (CN) is a bio-polymer and a polysaccharide having an enormous number of functional groups like amino and hydroxyl which provides a feature of cationic polyelectrolyte for chelating Ni in water as well as in soil [12,28,29]. It has been reported that application of CN in Ni-stressed soil can favor plant health, quality, and productivity by limiting Ni uptake in plants [28,29,32], improvement in plant antioxidants [33], soil WHC [34], and the activities of soil enzymes [35]. Bentonite (BE) is a viable clay mineral composed of a crystalline connecting structure of two tetrahedral layers of silica and an octahedral layer of alumina [36]. Mixing of BE in the soil also improves soil enzymatic activities leading to soil health [37]. Researchers have extensively tested BE in Ni-affected soil for Ni immobilization [36,38] that improved the biomass of plants [38], antioxidant enzymes, and biochemical attributes [39] as soil to plant Ni mobility was reduced.
Up to now, researchers have tried to explore the roles of BR, BN, and CN for the management of Ni-affected soils. However, the role of BE, BR, and CN in a Ni-affected soil to enhance Ni immobility and enzymatic activities in the soil, reduced Ni uptake in plants and their interlinked parameters such as biomass, oxidative stress, antioxidant enzyme activities, and biochemical attributes in lentil is still not scrutinized. Based on the previous research gaps, the objectives of this study were: (1) to appraise the immobilizing ability of BR, CN, and BN for Ni in a Ni-affected soil; (2) to inspect the impacts of these amendments on biomass, biochemical attributes, oxidative stress and antioxidant enzymes in lentil and enzymatic activities in soil and (3) to identify the most efficient combination of these amendments in terms of curtailing Ni toxicity to lentil plants grown under Ni stress.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Collection and Analysis of Ni-Affected Soil

The topsoil portion (0–15 cm) of Ni-affected soil was collected nearby an industrial zone receiving untreated effluents discharged from a Ni electroplating industry in the outskirt of Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. The plastic soil sampling bags were filled with Ni-affected soil and transported to the laboratory. Before going to use the soil in this experiment, standard procedures were adopted to estimate the physicochemical characteristics of this Ni-affected soil. To this end, the soil was dried in shade by spreading it on a polyethylene sheet and sieved using a 2 mm sieve to remove stones and other impurities. The hydrometer method [40] was used to determine soil texture. To achieve it, 40 g of the soil was thoroughly mixed with 60 mL of sodium hexametaphosphate (NaPO3)6 in the beaker and placed overnight. The next day, the de-ionized water was added into the formulated amalgamate and shaken for 8 h. Later, this blend was carefully transferred into a 1 L graduated cylinder, filled to the standard mark, and a hydrometer was used to determine proportions of sand, silt, and clay. Likewise, electrical conductivity (EC) and soil pH were determined using calibrated EC meter (Thermo Orion 4 Star (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and standardized pH meter (Thermo Orion 4 Star pH ISE Benchtop Meter, Cole-Parmer Co., Vernon Hills, IL, USA) respectively, at 25 °C in a saturated soil paste that was prepared by agitating soil-water mixture (1:2.5, soil: deionized water) for approximately 1 h. The CEC of Ni-affected soil was assessed by adopting the procedure endorsed by Rhoades [41]. To achieve this, the cation exchange sites of the soil were saturated with Na through equilibrating a soil sample by a formulated amalgamate of 0.4 M sodium acetate (NaOAc) and 0.1 M sodium chloride (NaCl) in 60% ethanol. Next, this Na saturated soil was extracted by 0.5 M magnesium nitrate [Mg(NO3)2] to quantify the total fraction of exchangeable Na. For determining the CEC of the soil, the quantity of total Na in the extract was estimated on ICP−MS (PerkinElmer’s NexION® 2000, PerkinElmer, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). In a similar context, the organic matter was determined employing the Walkley-Black procedure as suggested by Jackson [42]. For this purpose, 1 g of air-dried soil was blended with 10 mL of 1 N potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7) and 20 mL of sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Next, this formulated concoction was amalgamated with 10 mL of concentrated orthophosphoric acid (H3PO4) and 200 mL of de-ionized water and further titrated with 0.5 M ferrous ammonium sulphate (FeH8N2O8S2). Similarly, the content of plant-available P was acquired from the soil by adopting a standard method proposed by Olsen [43]. To this end, 2.5 g of soil was amalgamated with 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) (adjusted pH = 8.5) solution and shaken for 30 min. After filtration of this amalgamate, the orthophosphate (PO43−) in the filtrate was estimated on a spectrophotometer (Analytik Jena SPECORD 200 PLUS, Analytik Jena AG, Jena, Germany) by reacting it with ammonium molybdate [(NH4)6Mo7O24]. The amount of exchangeable K was valued by following the method put forwarded by Richards [44]. For this, a soil sample (5 g) was mixed with 33 mL of 1 N ammonium acetate (NH4OAc). This amalgamate was centrifuged to achieve a transparent supernatant. After filtration, the NH4OAc extract was diluted with de-ionized water and the concentration of K was measured at 767 nm on a flame photometer (BWB Model BWB-XP, 5 Channel). Likewise, the total N in the soil was determined by a standard protocol suggested by Bremner and Mulvaney [45]. The content of CaCO3 was also determined in Ni-affected soil via dissolution of carbonate using 0.5 M (hydrochloric acid) HCl and titration of extra acid by 0.2 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) [46]. For the estimation of plant available Ni in the soil, it was extracted with 0.005 M diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) solution. To prepare this solution, 1.97 g of DTPA and 1.1 g of calcium chloride (CaCl2) were mixed within a beaker and dissolved with de-ionized water up to 1 L volume. Separately, 14.92 g triethanolamine (TEA) was dissolved with de-ionized water and made a volume of 900 mL within a 1-L flask. Then, 6 N HCl was used to adjust the pH (at 7.3) of this solution. After taking the extract, the concentration of Ni was measured on ICP−MS [47]. A subsequent quantity of soil (5 g) was deployed for its digestion in aqua regia mixture [HCl: nitric acid (HNO3), 3:1 v/v) to determine the amount of total Ni in the soil [48] and later examined on ICP−MS.

2.2. Acquirement of Immobilizing Amendments

2.2.1. Preparation and Characteristics of BR

Biochar used in this study was produced from the waste branches of bougainvillea vines that was pyrolyzed in a closed reactor at a persistent temperature (400 °C). The prepared BR was air-dried, pulverized in a blender (<0.5 mm), passed through 0.5 mm sieve and stored in a desiccator. The physicochemical peculiarities of bouginvilla derived BR were as follows: SA = 311 m2 g−1, EC = 0.81 dS m−1, pH = 8.0, CEC = 33.4 cmolc kg−1, C = 74.9%, N = 0.67%, H = 3.4%, O = 17.1%, H to C ratio = 0.04, O to C ratio = 0.22, N = 74.9 g kg−1, P = 0.81 g kg−1, K = 6.6 g kg−1, Ca = 19.1 g kg−1, Mg = 3.1 g kg−1, S = 1.1 g kg−1, Fe = 2.6 g kg−1, Mn = 1.8 g kg−1 and Zn = 4.3 g kg−1.

2.2.2. Purchase of CN and BE

The deployed CN was bought from Sigma-Aldrich, Germany having the following physicochemical attributes: SA = 13.2 m2 g−1, pH = 7.4, EC = 3.18 dS m−1, CEC = 33.41 cmolc kg−1 and deacetylation = 75–85%. While, the BE used in this study was purchased from the Faisalabad scientific store, Asad tower, main gate Jinnah Colony, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Represented physicochemical attributes of deployed BE were as follows: SA = 34.7 m2 g−1, pH = 9.4, EC = 3.31 dS m−1, CEC = 137 cmolc kg−1, Al2O3 = 11.7%, Fe2O3 = 6.91%, MgO = 6.87%, Na2O = 0.03%, CaO = 9.3%, K2O = 1.18%, TiO2 = 0.37%, SiO2 = 31.1%, MnO = 0.21%, SO3 = 0.01% and P2O5 = 0.39%.

2.3. Pot Trial

Prior to using the soil to conduct this pot trial, the soil was mixed with BR, CN, and BE at various proportions. These immobilizing amendments (as an individual dose at 2% and their combination at 1% each) were homogenized with extreme care in the Ni-affected soil as per the experimental plan (Table 1). Afterward, the plastic pots (25.4 cm width, 33.0 cm height) were filled with 5 kg un-amended soil as control and modified soil with immobilizing amendments having three replicates. Later, the position of filled pots was switched to a greenhouse depicting exemplary environmental conditions and kept in the randomized design. Further, lentil seeds (15 seeds pot−1) were sown in each pot. After one week of seed sprouting in the pots, two plants per pot were maintained. The pots were irrigated with deionized water two times per week to maintain optimum moisture levels (65% WHC). After the 100 days of plant growth, the lentil pods became mature which was the sign that the plants were ready to harvest.

2.4. Reaping of Lentil Plants and Analysis

Right afore plant gleaning, the plant height was estimated with the help of a measuring tape. After 100 days, lentil plants were carefully clipped near the soil surface with the help of a sharp cutter. After the harvest of aerial biomass, the soil from the individual pot was profited with ultimate care to eradicate roots. Thereafter, the plant shoots were comprehensively rinsed with deionized water to abolish aerially fallen dust flecks. Whereas, the roots were initially washed with deionized water to remove the soil adhered to them and later in 0.05 M CaCl2 solution in an ultrasonic bath for the removal of metal ions from the apparent free space of root tissues, correspondingly.
The leaf fresh weight (FW), turgid weight (TW), and dry weight (DW) of the plants were employed to calculate relative water content [RWC (%)] with the help of an Equation (1). To this end, the fresh leaves of lentil plants were weighed to estimate the FW. To determine the TW, these fresh leaves were put in test tubes, filled with distilled water, kept in dark at room temperature (25 °C) for 24 h, and later weighed. Coming after, the fresh leaves were oven-dried (60 °C, 48 h) till the perpetual DW was achieved. Afterward, the RWC was estimated [49].
RWC (%) = [(FW − DW)/(TW − DW)] × 100

2.5. Determination of Ni in Soil and Plant Parts and Micro-Nutrients in Grain

For the estimation of plant-available Ni, the soil was extracted with 0.005 M DTPA solution [DTPA + TEA + CaCl2, pH = 7.3] and later the concentration of Ni in the extract was analyzed on ICP−MS. Since the soil used in this experiment was calcareous, the extractability of Ni is best determined with DTPA extractant [50]. Previously, it has been well reported that the fractions of Ni extracted with DTPA extractant from the calcareous soils were well correlated with the Ni concentrations in the plants [5,51,52].
To achieve a constant DW of plant biomass, the harvested plant material was initially air-dried and later oven-dried in an oven (Memmert, Beschickung-loading, model 100–800, Schwabach, Germany) for 72 h at 70 °C. The concentrations of micro-nutrients in grain and Ni concentrations in the shoots, and roots and grain were assessed in digested plant parts. To this end, 1 g of plant DW (roots, shoots, and grain) was taken, pulverized in a mill, and passed from 2 mm mesh. Subsequently, these ground samples of plant parts were digested by way of a di-acid concoction [HNO3: perchloric acid (HClO4), 2:1, v/v) for the evaluation of Ni in the roots, shoots, and grain, as well as essential micro-nutrients in grain [53]. Later, the concentrations of these cations were measured on ICP−MS.

2.6. Biochemical Spectrum of Grain

Numerous biochemical compounds were also estimated in the grain to gain an insight view of grain nutritional quality as affected by different amendments. The contents of fiber and fat were determined by following the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) protocol [54]. Similarly, the content of total soluble protein was estimated by following the protein-dye binding procedure after the addition of the subsequent amount of buffer into the protein reagent. Later, bovine serum albumin as the stock was employed to record the interference of components present in the sample buffer with Bradford assay [55]. The Folin Ciocalteu method was used to analyze polyphenols in grain by calculating an absorbance coefficient curve of gallic acid at 760 nm on a spectrophotometer.

2.7. Activities of Antioxidants and Oxidative Injury in the Leaves

For the estimation of the antioxidants activities and ROS contents in lentil leaves, 0.5 g weight of fresh leaf was taken, comprehensively mixed in 4 mL potassium phosphate (K-P) buffer (50 mM, pH = 7) possessing 5 mM β-mercaptoethanol, 1 mM ascorbic acid (AsA) prepared from 10% w/v and 100 mM potassium chloride (KCl). Afterward, the concoction was centrifuged at 11,500× g to acquire liquid. Later, the response of antioxidants was evaluated in the liquid. The SOD activity was assessed by taking a particular amount (1 mL) of reaction mixture consisting of 10 mM pyrogallol, 100 mM ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), 50 mM sodium phosphate (Na-P) buffer with pH 7.8, and 50 mL enzyme extract. The spectrophotometer was employed to recognize the absorbance in the reaction concoction at 420 nm [56]. In a similar context, Cakmak and Marschner [57] protocol was deployed for observing the CAT response in leaves. To prepare an exclusive reaction mixture, H2O2 (10 mM, 1 mL) was comprehensively assorted with enzyme extract [2 mL diluted with 50 mM buffer (pH = 7)] and a spectrophotometer was employed to note the absorbance in the reaction concoction at 420 nm. A reaction concoction (0.5 mM AsA, 0.5 enzyme extract, 0.25 mL EDTA, 0.1 mM H2O2, and Na-P buffer) was prepared to assess APX activity in lentil leaves. The alteration in absorbance was recorded at 290 nm. The particular APX activity was calculated in a reaction concoction with the help of an extraction factor at 40 mM−1 cm−1 [58].
The ROS such as the contents of H2O2 and MDA and O2− generation rate were also examined in leaves by performing recommended methods. For the estimation of H2O2 content, 0.5 g leaf FW was taken and mixed in 5 mL K-P buffer. Afterward, to obtain a supernatant, the enzyme mixture was centrifuged at 10,000× g for approximately 15 min. Afterward, 5 mL of 0.1% w/v trichloroacetic acid (TCA) mixture was taken, homogenized in 10 mM K-P buffer (pH at 7) containing 1 mL of 1 M potassium iodide (KI). Later, the absorbance value of H2O2 in the reaction solution was noted at 390 nm by using a spectrophotometer [59]. The MDA was estimated in leaves by taking the extraction of fresh leaf tissue (0.5 g) dissolved in 5 mL of TCA (0.1%). For obtaining a 2.5 mL supernatant, the mixture was well homogenized and later centrifuged at 10,000× g for a time interval of 15 min. Afterward, a particular amount (1 mL) of TCA (20%) and thiobarbituric acid (TBA) (0.5%-w/v) were blended, heated at 95 °C, and allowed to cool for 30 min to acquire the reaction mixture. Thereafter, an absorbance at 532 and 600 nm was taken with the help of a spectrophotometer. Finally, the MDA contents in the reaction solution were recorded by observing the differences in absorbance at 532 and 600 nm ensuing Beer and Lambert’s expression [60]. Likewise, the reduction rate of nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT) was calculated to estimate the generation rate of O2− in leaves at 25 °C (pH = 7) in a 5 mL supernatant mixture obtained from 0.5 g leaf tissue [61]. For each assay, the reaction assay was comprised of 50–200 µg protein, 50 mM nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH), 100 µM NBT, 100 mM KCl, 100 µM EDTA and 50 mM phosphate. The generation of O2− radicals in the reaction assay was recorded by calculating a reduction rate of NBT after 500–1000 units of SOD addition. Afterward, the pure mixture of xanthine oxidase was further added for calibrating the feedback of NBT to the synthesis of O2− within the observed variations arising betwixt the reaction of NBT and O2− [61].

2.8. Soil Enzymatic Activities

A handsome amount of soil from each experimental pot was taken to estimate the activities of soil enzymes. For this purpose, the soil was passed through a mesh (2 mm) to remove impurities. The response of β-glucosidase in post-harvested soil was also estimated [62]. Synthetic substrate (ρ-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucopyranoside) was added in a 1 g soil sample and incubated (37 °C) for about 1 h. Later, to terminate the reaction of β-glucosidase, further addition of Tris (pH = 12, 0.02 mol L−1) was made. A spectrophotometer was used at 464 nm to record the reduction rate of the ρ-nitrophenyl substrate. Similarly, catalase activity was assessed based on the content of H2O2 consumed by the soil. A soil sample (5 g) was taken, homogenized with 25 mL H2O2 (3%) ensuing incubation at 4 °C for approximately 30 min. Thereafter, the reaction mixture was filtered and 25 mL of 1 M H2SO4 was added to the filtrate. Afterward, 5 mM potassium permanganate (KMnO4) was taken and the reaction mixture was titrated [63]. Similarly, the response of phosphomonoesterase was also assessed in post-harvested soil [64]. Phosphomonoesterase activity was computed by plotting a standard calibration curve and it was noticed that reaction was substrate-dependent. Similarly, for the estimation of acid phosphatase activity, soil (1 g) was taken, incubated at 37 °C for 1 h, and homogenized in 0.1 M of acetate buffer (pH-5.4). Later, ρ-nitrophenyl phosphate was adjusted [65].

2.9. Statistical Analysis of Experimental Data

The current pot study was executed in a CRD (completely randomized design) and the treatments were performed in three replicates. Later, the data were interpreted using Statistix 8.1® (Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL, USA) through a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Similarly, the least significant difference (LSD) test [66] was employed to calculate the significant difference (P < 0.05) between treatments.

3. Results

3.1. Nickel Distribution in Lentil Plant and Soil DTPA-Extractable Ni

The physicochemical properties of this soil were clay = 43%, silt = 41%, sand = 16%, organic matter content (OMC) = 0.87%, bicarbonate (HCO3) = 0.05%, pH = 7.03, CEC = 14.8 cmolc kg−1, EC = 1.8 dSm−1, content of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) = 2.7%, P = 7.2 mg kg−1, K =127 mg kg−1, N = 143 mg kg−1, total Ni = 88.2 mg kg−1 and DTPA-extractable Ni = 3.14 mg kg−1 soil.
Nickel concentrations were computed from 34.8 to 72.9, 13.7−43.2, and 2.4−19.8 mg kg−1 DW in roots, shoots, and grain, correspondingly, for lentil while the plant available Ni was estimated from 1.05 to 3.06 mg kg−1 soil (Figure 1). Nickel concentrations in roots, shoots, and grain, as well as plant-available Ni in the soil, were significantly lessened by the mixing of BR, CN, and BE (as an individual dose at 2% and consolidation at 1% each) in a Ni-affected soil, comparative to untreated soil. The treatment BE+CN resulted in the least Ni concentrations to significant extents in grain, shoots, roots, and plant available Ni in the soil that was statistically lower up to 87%, 68%, 52%, and 66%, respectively, over control treatment.

3.2. Biomass, Growth, Chlorophyll Contents, and RWC of Lentil

The response of plant height, shoot, and root dry biomass was in extent from 45.4 to 76.4 cm, 3.1−5.7, and 1.2−1.9 g pot−1, respectively, in whole treatments (Table 2). Application of BR, CN, and BE in a Ni-affected soil significantly improved biomass and growth of lentil. Interestingly, in contrast to plants in control, the maximal data of biomass and growth was acknowledged in the plants grown in the soil tainted with BR+CN that was statistically augmented up to 68%, 86%, and 58%, respectively.
The outcome of Chl-a, Chl-b in leaves of lentil, and RWC was recorded from 0.65 to 0.86, 0.53−0.83 mg g−1 FW, and 73.8−91.7%, respectively (Table 2). Every single treatment represented a significant rise in the contents of Chl-a (except BE treatment) and Chl-b (except both BE and CN treatments) in leaves over control. However, the highest Chl-a (in BR+CN treatment) and Chl-b (in BR+CN treatment followed by BR+BE) were recorded in leaves of lentil which were significantly higher for Chl-a till 51% and Chl-b till 56% and 46%, respectively. The relative water content of lentil plants in all treatments was calculated from 73.8 to 85.4% (Table 2). Incorporation of BR, CN and BE into the soil, excluding BE treatment, significantly increase RWC of lentil, compared to control. However, statistically, the greatest RWC values of lentil plants were calculated in BR+CN treatment followed by BR+BE and BE+CN which were increased by 24%, 20%, and 15%, respectively while comparing these findings with control.

3.3. Biochemical Compounds and Micronutrients in the Grain and Soil pH

Data regarding biochemical attributes (protein, fiber, fat, total sugar, and polyphenols) in lentil grain were measured in the ranges from 17.6 to 24.9, 3.9−7.0, 0.9−1.5, 1.9−3.1, and 3.3−5.9 mg g−1 FW, correspondingly in whole treatments (Table 3). Adding BR, CN, and BE into a Ni-affected soil statistically improved protein (excluding BE and CN treatments), fiber, fat, and total sugar, and while diminished polyphenols in grain over plants in un-amended soil. The BR+CN treatment demonstrated the greatest fiber and total sugar in the grain which was significantly improved up to 78% and 61%, respectively. Statistically, the highest fat content in the grain was found in BR+CN treatment followed by BR+BE and BE+CN up to 58%, 50%, and 45%, respectively, compared to plants of control. Similarly, the BR+CN and BR+BE treatments demonstrated the maximal protein (improved by 42% and 30%, respectively) while minimal polyphenols (diminished by 45% and 38%, respectively) in the grain in contrasting with plants of the untreated control.
The concentrations of Fe, Zn, Mn, Mg, Ca, and Na in grain were determined from 45.1 to 68.2, 29.7−48.4, 12.2−20.9, 390.0−515.5, 321.5−423.8, and 39.9−52.9 mg g−1 DW, respectively (Table 3). Application of BR, CN, and BE increased the concentrations of Zn, Mg, and Ca in the grain over control. Interestingly, significant concentrations at their peaks for Zn (in BR+CN treatment by 63%), Mg (in BR+CN, BR+BE and BR treatments by 32%, 27% and 23%, respectively) and Ca (in BR+CN and BR treatments by 38% and 32%, respectively) in grain, relative to plants in control, were reported. Likewise, all treatments exhibited significant upgradation in concentrations of Mn and Na (with exception of BE treatment), and Fe (with exception of BE and CN treatments) in the grain over plants in control. Surprisingly, the BR+CN treatment demonstrated the highest advancement in concentrations of Mn, Na, and Fe in grain up to 71%, 32%, and 42%, respectively, compared to control.
Likewise, The values of pH were ranged from 7.03 to 7.78 in the post-harvest soil of entire treatments (Table 3). Except for CN and BR+CN, the further treatments were able to expressively improve the pH values of post-harvest soil, relative to the control. Significantly, the highest pH values were found in the soils treated with BE, BR+BE, and BE+CN that were 0.75, 0.61, and 0.51 units greater than the control treatment.

3.4. Oxidative Injury and the Status of Antioxidant Defense Machinery in Lentil

Resulting data of ROS (e.g., O2−, H2O2, and MDA) contents in lentil leaves were resolute to the level from 142.64−266.13 nmol min−1 g−1 FW, 1.37−2.13 and 0.98 to 2.24 nmol g−1 FW, respectively while APX, CAT, and SOD activities in leaves ranged from 1.06 to 1.5 mg−1 protein FW, 0.39−0.67 and 1.5−1.9 nkat mg−1 protein FW respectively (Figure 2).
Application of BR, CN, and BE in the soil affected by Ni significantly controlled the generation of O2−, and the contents of H2O2 and MDA, whereas, upgraded APX, CAT, and SOD (except BE treatment) activities in leaves over control. However, non-significantly the highest decline of H2O2 and O2− in leaves of lentil grown in BR+CN and BR+BE treatments was seen. These BR+CN treatment reflected maximal curtailment in H2O2 and O2− by 45% and 40%, respectively with respect to control. In the instance of MDA, the highest reduction in leaves was resulted due to the BR+CN treatment which was statistically 56% lower, compared to control. Similarly, SOD and APX in leaves, in contrast with control, could be noticed in BR+CN, BR+BE, and BE+CN treatments which presented as significantly topmost bolstered up SOD by 36%, 29%, and 25%, respectively, and APX by 41%, 35%, and 32%, respectively. For CAT, the maximum activity was found in leaves of plants grown in BR+CN treatment that was significantly upgraded by 75%, relative to un-amended control.

3.5. Enzymatic Activities in Soil

Data of enzymatic activities such as β-glucosidase, phosphomonoesterase, catalase, and acid phosphatase in soil were calculated in the ranges from 1.66 to 2.87 and 0.35−1.05 mol PNF g−1 h−1, 0.14−0.36 vol. of 0.1 M KMnO4 g−1 soil and 18.2−30.1 mg p-NP g−1 24 h−1 (Figure 3). All treatments significantly enhanced phosphomonoesterase and catalase in the soil over control treatment. However, the maximum activities of both phosphomonoesterase and catalase were estimated in the soil of BR+CN treatment that was conspicuously incremented up to 200% and 162%, correspondingly, over control. Application of BR, CN, and BE in the soil, except BE treatment, significantly raised β-glucosidase and acid phosphatase in a Ni-affected soil compared to untreated soil. Interestingly, the BR+CN treatment showed statistically the highest improvement in β-glucosidase by 0.72% and acid phosphatase by 65% in the soil, compared to control.

4. Discussion

4.1. Nickel Distribution in Lentil Plant, Bioavailable Ni in Soil, and Soil pH

We found that application of BR, CN, and BE in the Ni-affected soil considerably diminished Ni distribution in lentil (roots, shoots, and grain) and bioaccessible Ni in the soil after plant reap. These data are more noticeable in lentil plants grown in the soil of BE+CN treatment (Figure 1). This significant scaling of Ni concentrations in the plant portions, as well as Ni bioavailable fraction in the soil, has already been reported by several studies after the application of BN and CN in Ni-affected soils [28,29,38]. Conceivable reasoning behind this significant drop in Ni concentrations in shoots, roots, and grain as well as plant available Ni in the soil is due to the adsorption of Ni onto the large surface area of BE [36,38] and CN [12,28,29] through ion exchange, chemisorption, and complexation in the soil, and therefore, restricted Ni uptake by the plants [28,29,32,38]. Chitosan exhibits numerous hydroxyl and amino groups that support Ni chelation through inter or intra-molecular binding [12,28,29]. Additionally, the presence of alumina, silica, and oxides (i.e., Al2O3, MnO, Fe2O3, CaO, and MgO, etc.) in BN also supports Ni immobilization via cation exchange and complexation mechanisms [67]. All these mechanisms supported Ni immobility in the soil and its reduced uptake and distribution in lentil plant parts.
The bioavailability of Ni in the soil is directly controlled by the soil pH [67,68]. According to our data, significantly the highest pH values of the post-harvested soil were found in BE, BR+CH, and BE+CH treatments, compared to control (Table 3). Previously, the significant rise in the pH values of post-harvest soils by 1.5 units [69], 0.84 unit [70], and 1.38 units [71] with the application of BR derived from woodchip, lignin, and rice straw feedstocks, respectively, were reported. Furthermore, the rise in pH values of different metal-contaminated soils after the addition of BE has been well documented [72,73,74]. During the charring process of feedstock to manufacture BR, basic cations (Mg, K, Na, and Ca) existing in the feedstock are transformed into corresponding carbonates, oxides, and hydroxides [75,76] which escalate soil pH after their dissolution upon BR addition in the soil [77]. Furthermore, the rise in soil pH after the addition of BE is associated with its alkaline nature [67,73]. A rise in soil pH ropes the development of insoluble oxides, hydroxides, carbonates, and phosphate of Ni and therefore, triggers Ni bioavailability in the soil [67,68,78].

4.2. Biomass, Growth, Chlorophyll Contents, and RWC of Lentil

We commenced that growth (plant height, shoot and root dry biomass), Chl-a, Chl-b, and RWC parameters (with few exceptions) were significantly enhanced by the incorporation of BR, CN, and BE in a Ni-affected soil, relative to control. Surprisingly, data associated with these parameters were found the most significant with BR+CN treatment (Table 2). Retardation in the growth and biomass of lentil [26], sunflower [28], red clover [4], and maize [5] grown in soil contaminated with Ni has been previously addressed by several authors. Similarly, Ni-affected soils significantly curtailed the Chl contents in the leaves of lentil [25] and RWC in green buttonwood [79]. The improvement in the growth, biomass, and chlorophyll contents of lentil after the application of BR and CN in Ni-affected soil is in conformity with the outcomes of preceding studies [4,5,28,29]. The possible mechanism behind this upgradation of growth and biomass in lentil might be because of the occurrence of BR in the soil which raised soil pH (Table 3) through the existence of CHNO bearing functional groups, carbonates, and −OH groups as well as the release of basic cations like Mg, Ca, Si, etc. [76]. The rise in soil pH is known to improve plant growth by relieving Ni stress to them through transforming the bioavailable Ni fractions into its nonsoluble compounds i.e., oxides, hydroxides, carbonates, and phosphate [67,68]. Another justification could be that the mixing of BR and CN in Ni polluted soil promoted overall soil health via improving porous structure, moisture retention, plant-water relationship, and CEC [11,28,29] and thereby, upgraded plant growth. Furthermore, improvement in biomass, photosynthesis, and RWC of lentil could be concomitant with improved plant health via a sharp decline in bioavailable Ni after its adsorption onto carboxyl, hydroxyl, phenolic, and aromatic stretches of BR plus free amino and hydroxyl groups CN [12,28,29]. Remarkably, BR acts as a slow-release fertilizer and provides imperative nutrients to the plants following its addition to the soil [67,80]. Interestingly, the adsorption of Ni onto BR surfaces releases an equal quantity of cations (Ca2+, Na+, Mg2+, and K+) as a mechanism of cation exchange. These released cations are uptaken by the plants which improve their growth and biomass [67,80].

4.3. Biochemical Compounds and Micronutrients in the Grain

With few exceptions, the biochemical compounds (protein, fiber, fat and total sugar) and micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn, Mg, Ca, and Na) concentrations in grain were significantly boosted by incorporating BR, CN, and BE into a Ni-affected soil over control (Table 3). However, the most significant data related to these parameters were found in the plants of BR+CN treatment. The toxicity of Ni to the plants has been reported to reduce the biochemical compounds in red clover [4] and brinjal [29] as well as micro-nutrients in sunflower [28] and brinjal [29]. Surprisingly, after BR and CH application in Ni-affected soil, enhancement in the biochemical compounds in maize, sunflower, spinach, brinjal, and wheat has been previously reported [4,5,11,24,28,29]. Likewise, an increment in the status of micronutrients in lentil grain is in alignment with the findings of recent studies where advancement in micro-nutrients in maize [31] and quinoa [30] grown in BR amended soil as well as in cereal in CN amended soil [81], was reported. The enhancement in the contents of biochemical compounds as well as micronutrients in grains might be because of the augmentation in the soil WHC, porosity, health, and enzymatic activities after amending with BR [11] and CN [34,67] which ultimately enhanced nutrient bioavailability and transferability in plants [82] as well as a higher generation of protein, carotenoids, sugar, starch, and amino acids through improvement in plant metabolism via efficient water mobility through the xylem to the leaves [83]. Moreover, the presence of BR in the soil supports the plant nutrition and quality via (i) the slow release of nutrients from mineralization of BR as well as adsorbed nutrients from its surfaces [84,85] and (ii) set free mineral nutrients from BR surfaces during the adsorption of heavy metals through cation exchange [67,85].

4.4. Oxidative Injury and the Status of Antioxidant Defense Machinery in Lentil

To overcome Ni stress, the plants generate antioxidant enzymes (such as CAT, SOD, APX, etc.) which help plants to cope with oxidative stress like the excessive generation of ROS [15,86] via inhibition of oxidizing chain reaction [87]. Resultantly, this oxidative pressure destroys primary organelles such as lipid, protein, and DNA through the inactivation of enzymes which as a result, causes the death of cells [24,28,29]. In our research trial, we found that the incorporation of BR, BE, and CN into Ni-stressed soil significantly (including some exceptions) lessens the production of ROS and boosted up antioxidants enzymes in leaves. Interestingly, these results were more conspicuous in BR+CN treatment (Figure 2). The data of our study is coherent with conclusions of preceding research where enhancement of antioxidant enzymes whereas lowering oxidative pressure in sunflower, maize, and brinjal grown in a Ni stressed soil with the incorporation of BR and CN, were reported [24,28,29]. Application of BR and CN in Ni stressed soils intensify the generation of antioxidants and reduced ROS in the plants due to mitigation of Ni stress to them via reduced Ni bioavailability in the soil after its immobilization on the colossal surface area of BR and CN as well as on their active functional groups [4,5,28,29,88,89]. Chitosan displays the capability to provoke vital nutrients via altering the osmotic pressure in the cell as well as declining the load of noxious free radicals [90], which leads to augment antioxidant enzymes [91]. Moreover, CN has a large surface area encompassing reactive functional groups which equivalently implant antioxidants on their skeleton [91,92]. Additionally, the presence of CN in the soil is known to shrink ROS generation and boost the immune response in the plants by gene expression of CAT and SOD [67].

4.5. Enzymatic Activities in the Soil

The enzymatic activities in the soil are considered as a biological indicator that demonstrates the whole quality of the soil specifically for assessing the influence of Ni contamination in soil because the elevated concentration of Ni in the soil inhibits soil enzymatic activities [11,93]. In our investigation, soil enzymatic activities (β-glucosidase, phosphomonoesterase, catalase, and acid phosphatase) were significantly affected in a Ni-affected soil amended with BR, BE, and CN, compared to the untreated soil (Figure 3). Remarkably, these findings were more pronounced in the soil of BR+CN treatment. Similar data regarding enzymatic activities in the soil was previously demonstrated by researchers who have amended soil using BR [11,94] and CN [35]. In our experiment, the rise in the activities of soil enzymes is owing to the alleviation of Ni stress to the soil microbes after Ni was immobilized on BR and CN surfaces [67]. Furthermore, BR and CN inclusion in the soil leads to better soil conditions which are favorable for boosting the microbial biomass and their activities [67,68,70]. It has been well documented that BR, as a slow-release fertilizer, provides essential nutritional elements to the soil microbes which increase their abundance and diversity leading to the secretion of higher concentrations of soil enzymes by them [70].

5. Conclusions

The current investigation depicts the exclusive role of BR, CN, and BE to render the bioavailability of Ni in a Ni-affected soil and resultantly lessen uptake by lentil. Each treatment significantly abridged the Ni uptake in the roots, shoots, and grain, relative to control. However, the most significant outcomes were found in BE+CN in terms of Ni concentrations in these plant parts. Whereas, BR+CN treatment indicated the minimum oxidative stress and the utmost plant growth, Chl contents, RWC, grain micronutrients, and biochemical compounds and soil enzymes. We suggest using BE+CN treatment in Ni-affected soil to reduce Ni concentrations in plant parts whereas, BR+CN treatment can improve plant growth, grain nutrition and biochemistry, soil enzymes, and oxidative stress to plant.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.I., and H.S.T.-u.-H.; methodology, S.E.-u.-H.; software, B.R.; validation, M.I., H.S.T.-u.-H. and B.R.; investigation, I.A.; data curation, N.I.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S.T.-u.-H.; writing—review and editing, H.S.T.-u.-H., and M.I.; visualization, K.L.; supervision, S.S., S.Z., and T.Y.; project administration, M.I., L.J., and N.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this manuscript express their gratitude to the Soil and Water Testing Laboratory, Bahawalpur, Pakistan, and the Institute of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Bingol University, Turkey for their kind service and valuable time to carry out the numerous analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alloway, B.J. Heavy Metals in Soils; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 11–50. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cempel, M.; Nikel, G. Nickel: A review of its sources and environmental toxicology. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2006, 15, 375–382. [Google Scholar]
  3. Iyaka, Y.A. Nickel in soils: A review of its distribution and impacts. Sci. Res. Essays 2011, 6, 6774–6777. [Google Scholar]
  4. Shahbaz, A.K.; Lewińska, K.; Iqbal, J.; Ali, Q.; Iqbal, M.; Abbas, F.; Tauqeer, H.M.; Ramzani, P.M.A. Improvement in productivity, nutritional quality, and antioxidative defense mechanisms of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) and maize (Zea mays L.) in nickel contaminated soil amended with different biochar and zeolite ratios. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 218, 256–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Shahbaz, A.K.; Iqbal, M.; Jabbar, A.; Hussain, S.; Ibrahim, M. Assessment of nickel bioavailability through chemical extractants and red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in an amended soil: Related changes in various parameters of red clover. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 149, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Holm, O.; Hansen, E.; Lassen, C.; Stuer-Lauridsen, F.; Kjølholt, J. Heavy Metals in Wastes; Project ENV.E.3/ETU/2000/, COWI A/S; European Commission on Environment: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/heavy_metalsreport.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2020).
  7. Mahmood, A.; Malik, R.N. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals via consumption of contaminated vegetables collected from different irrigation sources in Lahore, Pakistan. Arabian J. Chem. 2014, 7, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. WHO/FAO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Food Additives and Contaminants. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, ALINORM 10/12A. 2001. Available online: www.transpaktrading.com/static/pdf/research/achemistry/introTofertilizers.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2020).
  9. Abbasi, M.N.; Tufail, M.; Mashiatullah, A.; Chaudhary, M.Z. A Review of Heavy Metal Pollution in the Soil of Pakistan. Sci. Int. 2014, 26, 2201–2205. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mashiatullah, A.; Chaudhary, M.Z.; Ahmad, N.; Javed, T.; Ghaffar, A. Metal pollution and ecological risk assessment in marine sediments of Karachi Coast, Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012, 185, 1555–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Khan, W.U.D.; Ramzani, P.M.A.; Anjum, S.; Abbas, F.; Iqbal, M.; Yasar, A.; Ihsan, M.Z.; Anwar, M.N.; Baqar, M.; Taqueer, H.M.; et al. Potential of miscanthus biochar to improve sandy soil health, in situ nickel immobilization in soil and nutritional quality of spinach. Chemosphere 2017, 185, 1144–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pivarčiová, L.; Rosskopfová, O.; Galamboš, M.; Rajec, P. Sorption of nickel on chitosan. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 2014, 300, 361–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mousavi, H.Z.; Seyedi, S.R. Nettle ash as a low cost adsorbent for the removal of nickel and cadmium from wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 8, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Ahmad, I.Z.; Ahmad, A.; Mabood, A.; Tabassum, H. Effects of different metal stresses on the antioxidant defense systems of medicinal plants. In Reactive Oxygen Species and Antioxidant Systems in Plants: Role and Regulation under Abiotic Stress; Khan, M.I.R., Khan, N.A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 215–256. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kotapati, K.V.; Palaka, B.K.; Ampasala, D.R. Alleviation of nickel toxicity in finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) germinating seedlings by exogenous application of salicylic acid and nitric oxide. Crop J. 2017, 5, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Soares, C.; de Sousa, A.; Pinto, A.; Azenha, M.; Teixeira, J.; Azevedo, R.A.; Fidalgo, F. Effect of 24-epibrassinolide on ROS content, antioxidant system, lipid peroxidation and Ni uptake in Solanum nigrum L. under Ni stress. Environ. Exp. Botany 2016, 122, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sachan, P.; Lal, N. An overview of nickel (Ni2+) essentiality, toxicity and tolerance strategies in plants. Asian J. Biol. 2017, 2, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Pandey, N.; Pathak, G.C. Nickel alters antioxidative defense and water status in green gram. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 2006, 11, 113. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pandey, N.; Sharma, C.P. Effect of heavy metals Co2+, Ni2+ and Cd2+ on growth and metabolism of cabbage. Plant Sci. 2002, 163, 753–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pandey, N.; Pathak, G.C.; Pandey, D.K.; Pandey, R. Heavy metals, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn and Cd, produce oxidative damage and evoke differential antioxidant responses in spinach. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2009, 21, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Demirezen Yilmaz, D.; Uruç Parlak, K. Antioxidative parameters in the opposite-leaved pondweed (Gronlendia densa) in response to nickel stress. Chem. Spec. Bioavail. 2011, 23, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Bhuyan, M.H.M.; Zulfiqar, F.; Raza, A.; Mohsin, S.M.; Mahmud, J.A.; Fujita, M.; Fotopoulos, V. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense in plants under abiotic stress: Revisiting the crucial role of a universal defense regulator. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, B.; Peng, H.; Deng, Z.; Tsao, R. Phytochemicals of lentil (Lens culinaris) and their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects. J. Food Bioact. 2018, 1, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Shahbaz, A.K.; Ramzani, P.M.A.; Saeed, R.; Turan, V.; Iqbal, M.; Lewińska, K.; Abbas, F.; Saqib, M.; Tauqeer, H.M.; Iqbal, M.; et al. Effects of biochar and zeolite soil amendments with foliar proline spray on nickel immobilization, nutritional quality and nickel concentrations in wheat. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 173, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Beri, A.; Sharma, R. Nickel toxicity to photosynthetic attributes in the leaves of lentil (Lens culnaris Medic. Masar). IJAR 2016, 2, 239–242. [Google Scholar]
  26. Saad, R.; Kobaissi, A.; Robin, C.; Echevarria, G.; Benizri, E. Nitrogen fixation and growth of Lens culinaris as affected by nickel availability: A pre-requisite for optimization of agromining. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2016, 131, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Puschenreiter, M. Sustainable Management of Trace Element Contaminated Soils-Development of a Decision Tool System and Its Evaluation for Practical Application. 2; Snowman: Vienna, Austria, 2008; pp. 1–318. [Google Scholar]
  28. Turan, V.; Ramzani, P.M.A.; Ali, Q.; Abbas, F.; Iqbal, M.; Irum, A.; Khan, W.U.D. Alleviation of nickel toxicity and an improvement in zinc bioavailability in sunflower seed with chitosan and biochar application in pH adjusted nickel contaminated soil. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2018, 64, 1053–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Turan, V.; Khan, S.A.; Iqbal, M.; Ramzani, P.M.A.; Fatima, M. Promoting the productivity and quality of brinjal aligned with heavy metals immobilization in a wastewater irrigated heavy metal polluted soil with biochar and chitosan. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 161, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ramzani, P.M.A.; Shan, L.; Anjum, S.; Ronggui, H.; Iqbal, M.; Virk, Z.A.; Kausar, S. Improved quinoa growth, physiological response, and seed nutritional quality in three soils having different stresses by the application of acidified biochar and compost. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 116, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ramzani, P.M.A.; Khalid, M.; Anjum, S.; Khan, W.U.D.; Iqbal, M.; Kausar, S. Improving iron bioavailability and nutritional value of maize (Zea mays L.) in sulfur-treated calcareous soil. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2017, 63, 1255–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shaheen, S.M.; Rinklebe, J.; Selim, M.H. Impact of various amendments on immobilization and phytoavailability of nickel and zinc in a contaminated floodplain soil. Inter. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 2015, 12, 2765–2776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ma, Z.; Yang, L.; Yan, H.; Kennedy, J.F.; Meng, X. Chitosan and oligochitosan enhance the resistance of peach fruit to brown rot. Carbohyd. Polym. 2013, 94, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pandey, P.; De, N. Effect of Chitosan Based Superabsorbent on Water Retention Behaviour of Soil and Seedling Growth of Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Ind. J. Ecol. 2017, 44, 456–460. [Google Scholar]
  35. Khati, P.; Chaudhary, P.; Gangola, S.; Bhatt, P.; Sharma, A. Nanochitosan supports growth of Zea mays and also maintains soil health following growth. Biotech 2017, 7, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Tahervand, S.; Jalali, M. Sorption and desorption of potentially toxic metals (Cd, Cu, Ni and Zn) by soil amended with bentonite, calcite and zeolite as a function of pH. J. Geochem. Exp. 2017, 181, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mi, J.; Gregorich, E.G.; Xu, S.; McLaughlin, N.B.; Liu, J. Effects of a one-time application of bentonite on soil enzymes in a semi-arid region. Canad. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 98, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kumararaja, P.; Shabeer, T.A.; Manjaiah, K.M. Effect of bentonite on heavy metal uptake by amaranth (Amaranthus blitum cv. Pusa Kirti) grown on metal contaminated soil. Horti. Soc. Ind. 2016, 73, 224–228. [Google Scholar]
  39. Śnioszek, M.; Telesiński, A.; Smolik, B.; Zakrzewska, H. Effect of Fluoride and Bentonite on Biochemical Aspects of Oxidative Stress in Pisum sativum L. J. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 19, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gee, G.W.; Bauder, J.W. Particle-Size Analysis. In Methods of Soil Analsysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods; Klute, A., Ed.; SSSA, ASA: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 383–409. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rhoades, J.D. Cation exchange capacity. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Page, A.L., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 149–157. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis; Constable and Company: London, UK, 1962; p. 498. [Google Scholar]
  43. Watanabe, F.S.; Olsen, S.R. Test of an ascorbic acid method for determining phosphorus in water and NaHCO3 extracts. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 1965, 29, 677–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Richards, L.A. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils; Handbook No. 60; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1954; pp. 83–126. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bremner, J.M.; Mulvaney, C.S. Nitrogen-Total. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, 2nd ed.; Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Eds.; Agron. Monogr. 9; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 595–624. [Google Scholar]
  46. Allison, L.E.; Moodie, C.D. Carbonate. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Black, C.A., Ed.; ASA, SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1965; pp. 1379–1396. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lindsay, W.L.; Norvell, W.A. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1978, 42, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, M.; Ma, L.Q. Comparison of three aqua regia digestion methods for twenty Florida soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Mullan, D.; Pietragalla, J. Leaf relative water content. In Physiological Breeding II: A Field Guide to Wheat Phenotyping; Pask, A.J.D., Pietragalla, J., Mullan, D.M., Reynolds, M.P., Eds.; Cimmyt: Mexico City, Mexico, 2012; pp. 25–27. [Google Scholar]
  50. Aydinalp, C.; Katkat, A.V. The comparison of extraction methods for evaluating some heavy metals in polluted soils. Plant Soil Environ. 2004, 50, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Jalali, M.; Hourseresht, Z. Metal Extractability in Binary and Multi-metals Spiked Calcareous Soils. Commun. Soil Sci.Plant Anal. 2017, 48, 1089–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Quevauviller, P.; Lachica, M.; Barahona, E.; Rauret, G.; Ure, A.; Gomez, A.; Muntau, H. Interlaboratory comparison of EDTA and DTPA procedures prior to certification of extractable trace elements in calcareous soil. Sci. Total Environ. 1996, 178, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jones, J.R.J.; Case, V.W. Sampling, handling, and analyzing plant tissue samples. In Soil Testing and Plant Analysis; Westerman, R.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1990; pp. 389–428. [Google Scholar]
  54. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official’s Analytical Chemists, 17th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  55. Bradford, M.M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976, 72, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Roth, E.F., Jr.; Gilbert, H.S. The pyrogallol assay for superoxide dismutase: Absence of a glutathione artifact. Anal. Biochem. 1984, 137, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cakmak, I.; Marschner, H. Magnesium deficiency and high light intensity enhance activities of superoxide dismutase, ascorbate peroxidase, and glutathione reductase in bean leaves. Plant Physiol. 1992, 98, 1222–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Nakano, Y.; Asada, K. Hydrogen peroxide is scavenged by ascorbate-specific peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts. Plant Cell Physiol. 1981, 22, 867–880. [Google Scholar]
  59. Velikova, V.; Yordanov, I.; Edreva, A. Oxidative stress and some antioxidant systems in acid rain-treated bean plants protective role of endogenous polyamines. Plant Sci. 2000, 151, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jambunathan, N. Determination and detection of reactive oxygen species (ROS), lipid peroxidation, and electrolyte leakage in plants. Method Mol. Biol. 2010, 639, 292–298. [Google Scholar]
  61. Auclair, C.; Voisin, E. Nitroblue tetrazolium reduction. In Handbook of Methods for Oxygen Radical Research; Greenwald, R.A., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1985; pp. 123–132. [Google Scholar]
  62. Eivazi, F.; Tabatabai, M.A. Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1988, 20, 601–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xu, G.H.; Zheng, H.Y. Handbook of Soil Microbiology Analysis Method; Chinese Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  64. Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Fu, S.; Méndez, A.; Gascó, G. Interactive effects of biochar and the earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus on plant productivity and soil enzyme activities. J. Soils Sed. 2014, 14, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tabatabai, M.A.; Bremner, J.M. Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1969, 1, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H.; Dickey, D.A. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  67. Turan, V. Confident performance of chitosan and pistachio shell biochar on reducing Ni bioavailability in soil and plant plus improved the soil enzymatic activities, antioxidant defense system and nutritional quality of lettuce. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 183, 109594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ali, U.; Shaaban, M.; Bashir, S.; Fu, Q.; Zhu, J.; Islam, M.S.; Hu, H. Effect of rice straw, biochar and calcite on maize plant and Ni bio-availability in acidic Ni contaminated soil. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 259, 109674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Kamran, M.; Malik, Z.; Parveen, A.; Huang, L.; Riaz, M.; Bashir, S.; Mustafa, A.; Abbasi, G.H.; Xue, B.; Ali, U. Ameliorative Effects of Biochar on Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) Growth and Heavy Metal Immobilization in Soil Irrigated with Untreated Wastewater. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2020, 39, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Khan, M.A.; Ramzani, P.M.A.; Zubair, M.; Rasool, B.; Khan, M.K.; Ahmed, A.; Khan, S.A.; Turan, V.; Iqbal, M. Associative effects of lignin-derived biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi applied to soil polluted from Pb-acid batteries effluents on barley grain safety. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 710, 136294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Salam, A.; Bashir, S.; Khan, I.; Hussain, Q.; Gao, R.; Hu, H. Biochar induced Pb and Cu immobilization, phytoavailability attenuation in Chinese cabbage, and improved biochemical properties in naturally co-contaminated soil. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 2381–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lahori, A.H.; Zhang, Z.; Shaheen, S.M.; Rinklebe, J.; Guo, Z.; Li, R.; Mahar, A.; Wang, Z.; Ren, C.; Mi, S.; et al. Mono-and co-applications of Ca-bentonite with zeolite, Ca-hydroxide, and tobacco biochar affect phytoavailability and uptake of copper and lead in a gold mine-polluted soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 374, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Vrinceanu, N.O.; Motelică, D.M.; Calciu, I.; Tănase, V.; Preda, M.; Plopeanu, G.; Ivana, I. Influence of bentonite, dolomite, natural zeolite and manure on heavy metal immobilization in a contaminated soil. AgroLife Sci. J. 2017, 6, 227–234. [Google Scholar]
  74. Zulqurnain Haider, M.; Hussain, S.; Muhammad Adnan Ramzani, P.; Iqbal, M.; Iqbal, M.; Shahzad, T.; Fatima, M.; Khan, S.A.; Khan, I.; Shahid, M.; et al. Bentonite and Biochar Mitigate Pb Toxicity in Pisum sativum by Reducing Plant Oxidative Stress and Pb Translocation. Plants 2019, 8, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Houben, D.; Evrard, L.; Sonnet, P. Beneficial effects of biochar application to contaminated soils on the bioavailability of Cd, Pb and Zn and the biomass production of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 57, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kim, J.M.; Roh, A.-S.; Choi, S.-C.; Kim, E.-J.; Choi, M.-T.; Ahn, B.-K.; Kim, S.-K.; Lee, Y.-H.; Joa, J.-H.; Kang, S.-S.; et al. Soil pH and electrical conductivity are key edaphic factors shaping bacterial communities of greenhouse soils in Korea. J. Microbiol. 2016, 54, 838–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bandara, T.; Herath, I.; Kumarathilaka, P.; Seneviratne, M.; Seneviratne, G.; Rajakaruna, N.; Vithanage, M.; Ok, Y.S. Role of woody biochar and fungal-bacterial co-inoculation on enzyme activity and metal immobilization in serpentine soil. J. Soils Sediments 2017, 17, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Uddin, M.K. A review on the adsorption of heavy metals by clay minerals, with special focus on the past decade. Chem. Eng.J. 2017, 308, 438–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tauqeer, H.M.; ur-Rahman, M.; Hussain, S.; Abbas, F.; Iqbal, M. The potential of an energy crop “Conocarpus erectus” for lead phytoextraction and phytostabilization of chromium, nickel, and cadmium: An excellent option for the management of multi-metal contaminated soils. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 173, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Guo, M.; Song, W.; Tian, J. Biochar-facilitated soil remediation: Mechanisms and efficacy variations. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Deshpande, P.; Dapkekar, A.; Oak, M.D.; Paknikar, K.M.; Rajwade, J.M. Zinc complexed chitosan/TPP nanoparticles: A promising micronutrient nanocarrier suited for foliar application. Carbohyd. Poly. 2017, 165, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Xu, G.; Wei, L.L.; Sun, J.N.; Shao, H.B.; Chang, S.X. What is more important for enhancing nutrient bioavailability with biochar application into a sandy soil: Direct or indirect mechanism? Ecol. Eng. 2013, 52, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hafeez, Y.; Iqbal, S.; Jabeen, K.; Shahzad, S.; Jahan, S.; Rasul, F. Effect of biochar application on seed germination and seedling growth of Glycine max (L.) Merr. Under drought stress. Pak. J. Bot. 2017, 49, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kizito, S.; Luo, H.; Lu, J.; Bah, H.; Dong, R.; Wu, S. Role of nutrient-enriched biochar as a soil amendment during maize growth: Exploring practical alternatives to recycle agricultural residuals and to reduce chemical fertilizer demand. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Naeem, I.; Masood, N.; Turan, V.; Iqbal, M. Prospective usage of magnesium potassium phosphate cement combined with Bougainvillea alba derived biochar to reduce Pb bioavailability in soil and its uptake by Spinacia oleracea L. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 208, 111723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Georgiadou, E.C.; Kowalska, E.; Patla, K.; Kulbat, K.; Smolinska, B.; Leszczynska, J.; Fotopoulos, V. Influence of heavy metals (Ni, Cu, and Zn) on nitro-oxidative stress responses, proteome regulation and allergen production in basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Abderrahim, F.; Huanatico, E.; Segura, R.; Arribas, S.; Gonzalez, M.C.; Condezo-Hoyos, L. Physical features, phenolic compounds, betalains and total antioxidant capacity of coloured quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) from Peruvian Altiplano. Food Chem. 2015, 183, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hernández-Hernández, H.; González-Morales, S.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Ortega-Ortiz, H.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Effects of chitosan–PVA and Cu nanoparticles on the growth and antioxidant capacity of tomato under saline stress. Molecules 2018, 23, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Wang, F.; Wang, H.; Al-Tabbaa, A. Leachability and heavy metal speciation of 17-year old stabilised/solidified contaminated site soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 278, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Guan, Y.J.; Hu, J.; Wang, X.J.; Shao, C.X. Seed priming with chitosan improves maize germination and seedling growth in relation to physiological changes under low temperature stress. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B 2009, 10, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Xie, M.; Hu, B.; Wang, Y.; Zeng, X. Grafting of gallic acid onto chitosan enhances antioxidant activities and alters rheological properties of the copolymer. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 9128–9136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Liu, L.; Huang, C.; Zhou, D.; Fu, L. Characterization and toxicology evaluation of chitosan nanoparticles on the embryonic development of zebrafish, Danio rerio. Carbohyd. Polym. 2016, 141, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Kuziemska, B. Enzymatic activity of nickel-contaminated soil. Teka Kom. Ochr. Kszt. Środ. Przyr. OL PAN 2014, 11, 77–89. [Google Scholar]
  94. Strachel, R.; Wyszkowska, J.; Baćmaga, M. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Sorbents in the Remediation of Soil Contaminated with Zinc. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2018, 229, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Minerals 11 00011 g001 550
Figure 1. Nickel concentrations in lentil shoots (a), roots (b), grain (c), and DTPA-extractable fraction (d) as influenced by adding BR, BE, and CN in a Ni-affected soil. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
Figure 1. Nickel concentrations in lentil shoots (a), roots (b), grain (c), and DTPA-extractable fraction (d) as influenced by adding BR, BE, and CN in a Ni-affected soil. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
Minerals 11 00011 g001
Minerals 11 00011 g002 550
Figure 2. Leaf MDA (a), H2O2 (b), O2− (c), SOD (d), CAT (e), and APX (f) as influenced by adding BR, BE, and CN in a Ni-affected soil. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
Figure 2. Leaf MDA (a), H2O2 (b), O2− (c), SOD (d), CAT (e), and APX (f) as influenced by adding BR, BE, and CN in a Ni-affected soil. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
Minerals 11 00011 g002
Minerals 11 00011 g003 550
Figure 3. β-glucosidase (a), phosphomonoesterase (b), catalase (c), acid phosphatase (d) activities in the soil after harvest of lentil plants as influenced by adding BR, BE, and CN in a Ni-affected soil. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
Figure 3. β-glucosidase (a), phosphomonoesterase (b), catalase (c), acid phosphatase (d) activities in the soil after harvest of lentil plants as influenced by adding BR, BE, and CN in a Ni-affected soil. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
Minerals 11 00011 g003
Table
Table 1. Overview of treatment plan considered in this pot experiment.
Table 1. Overview of treatment plan considered in this pot experiment.
TreatmentsAbbreviations% of the Amendment Incorporated in the SoilAmounts of Amendments Incorporated in the Soil (g pot−1)
ControlControl−−
BiocharBR2%100
BentoniteBE2%100
ChitosanCN2%100
Biochar+BentoniteBR+BE1% + 1%50 + 50
Biochar+ChitosanBR+CN1% + 1%50 + 50
Bentonite+ChitosanBE+CN1% + 1%50 + 50
Table
Table 2. The influences of BR, BE, and CN on growth and biomass, chlorophyll contents, and RWC in leaves of lentil grown on a Ni-affected soil are illustrated. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
Table 2. The influences of BR, BE, and CN on growth and biomass, chlorophyll contents, and RWC in leaves of lentil grown on a Ni-affected soil are illustrated. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
TreatmentsGrowthChlorophyll Relative Water Content (RWC)
Plant HeightShoot Dry BiomassRoot Dry BiomassChl-aChl-b
(cm)(g pot−1)(mg g−1 FW)(%)
Control45.4 ± 1.16 e3.1 ± 0.08 f1.9 ± 0.03 e0.65 ± 0.02 e0.53 ± 0.02 f73.8 ± 2.08 e
BR59.8 ± 1.52 c4.3 ± 0.11 d1.6 ± 0.04 c0.83 ± 0.03 bc0.67 ± 0.02 cd83.3 ± 2.35 b-d
BE52.0 ± 1.33 d3.6 ± 0.09 e1.3 ± 0.04 d0.72 ± 0.02 de0.58 ± 0.02 ef78.0 ± 2.20 de
CN56.4 ± 1.44 cd3.9 ± 0.10 de1.4 ± 0.04 d0.76 ± 0.02 cd0.63 ± 0.02 df81.2 ± 2.29 cd
BR+BE69.7 ± 1.78 b5.3 ± 0.13 b1.7 ± 0.05 b0.89 ± 0.03 b0.77 ± 0.02 ab88.5 ± 2.50 ab
BR+CN76.4 ± 1.95 a5.7 ± 0.15 a1.9 ± 0.05 a0.98 ± 0.03 a0.83 ± 0.03 a91.7 ± 2.58 a
BE+CN66.4 ± 1.70 b4.9 ± 0.12 c1.6 ± 0.05 bc0.86 ± 0.03 b0.73 ± 0.02 bc85.4 ± 2.41 a-c
Table
Table 3. The influences of BR, BE, and CN on soil pH, the biochemical compounds (protein, fiber, fat, total sugar, and polyphenols), and micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn, Mg, Ca, and Na) in grains of lentil grown on a Ni-affected soil are illustrated. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
Table 3. The influences of BR, BE, and CN on soil pH, the biochemical compounds (protein, fiber, fat, total sugar, and polyphenols), and micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn, Mg, Ca, and Na) in grains of lentil grown on a Ni-affected soil are illustrated. Values characterized by the same letter are not significantly different at the α = 0.05 level. These values are the mean of three replicates ±SE.
TreatmentsBiochemical CompoundsMicronutrientsSoil pH after Plant Harvest
ProteinFiberFatTotal SugarPolyphenolsFeZnMnMgCaNa
(mg g−1 FW)(mg g−1 DW)Values
Control17.6 ± 0.59 e3.9 ± 0.13 f0.9 ± 0.03 d1.9 ± 0.06 e5.9 ± 0.20 a47.9 ± 1.35 de29.7 ± 0.84 e12.2 ± 0.34 f390.0 ± 11.0 d321.5 ± 9.06 e39.9 ± 1.13 d7.03 ± 0.04c
BR20.6 ± 0.69 cd5.4 ± 0.18 cd1.3 ± 0.04 bc2.8 ± 0.09 b4.9 ± 0.16 bc57.6 ± 1.62 b41.6 ± 1.17 bc17.8 ± 0.50 b495.4 ± 13.9 ab423.8 ± 11.9 ab49.4 ± 1.39 ab7.27 ± 0.05b
BE18.8 ± 0.63 de4.7 ± 0.16 e1.2 ± 0.04 c2.2 ± 0.08 d5.2 ± 0.18 b45.1 ± 1.27 e35.9 ± 1.01 d12.8 ± 0.36 ef436.4 ± 12.3 c357.3 ± 10.0 d43.5 ± 1.23 cd7.78 ± 0.05a
CN19.4 ± 0.65 de5.1 ± 0.17 de1.3 ± 0.04 c2.5 ± 0.09 bc4.6 ± 0.15 c52.5 ± 1.48 cd39.6 ± 1.12 c14.6 ± 0.41 cd458.5 ± 12.9 bc377.4 ± 10.6 cd47.0 ± 1.33 bc7.12 ± 0.05c
BR+BE22.9 ± 0.77 ab6.3 ± 0.21 b1.5 ± 0.05 a2.4 ± 0.08 cd3.7 ± 0.13 de53.9 ± 1.52 bc43.6 ± 1.23 b15.2 ± 0.43 c479.6 ± 13.5 ab394.2 ± 11.1 bc47.9 ± 1.35 b7.64 ± 0.05ab
BR+CN24.9 ± 0.84 a7.0 ± 0.24 a1.5 ± 0.05 a3.1 ± 0.10 a3.3 ± 0.11 e68.2 ± 1.92 a48.4 ± 1.36 a20.9 ± 0.59 a515.5 ± 14.5 a443.8 ± 12.5 a52.9 ± 1.49 a7.19 ± 0.05bc
BE+CN21.6 ± 0.73 bc5.7 ± 0.19 bc1.4 ± 0.05 ab2.3 ± 0.08 cd4.0 ± 0.14 d55.8 ± 1.57 bc40.5 ± 1.14b c13.6 ± 0.38 de466.9 ± 13.1 bc384.8 ± 10.8 cd45.6 ± 1.28 bc7.54 ± 0.05ab
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tanzeem-ul-Haq, H.S.; Rasool, B.; Ehtisham-ul-Haque, S.; Saif, S.; Zafar, S.; Younis, T.; Akhtar, I.; Jafri, L.; Iqbal, N.; Masood, N.; et al. Chitosan with Bentonite and Biochar in Ni-Affected Soil Reduces Grain Ni Concentrations, Improves Soil Enzymes and Grain Quality in Lentil. Minerals 2021, 11, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11010011

AMA Style

Tanzeem-ul-Haq HS, Rasool B, Ehtisham-ul-Haque S, Saif S, Zafar S, Younis T, Akhtar I, Jafri L, Iqbal N, Masood N, et al. Chitosan with Bentonite and Biochar in Ni-Affected Soil Reduces Grain Ni Concentrations, Improves Soil Enzymes and Grain Quality in Lentil. Minerals. 2021; 11(1):11. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11010011

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tanzeem-ul-Haq, Hafiz Syed, Bilal Rasool, Syed Ehtisham-ul-Haque, Sadia Saif, Sadia Zafar, Tahira Younis, Imran Akhtar, Laila Jafri, Naeem Iqbal, Nasir Masood, and et al. 2021. "Chitosan with Bentonite and Biochar in Ni-Affected Soil Reduces Grain Ni Concentrations, Improves Soil Enzymes and Grain Quality in Lentil" Minerals 11, no. 1: 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11010011

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop